Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work of the university of Wolverhampton and its relationship with RAF Cosford and the Defence college of aeronautical engineering? If so, will he have words with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and ensure that the ongoing defence training review does not move defence training and valuable engineering jobs, skills and training from Shropshire to Wales? May I offer a refuge in Shropshire?

Mr. Speaker: I call David Chaytor—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: It is Question 6.

David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on trust schools.

Hon. Members: Hooray!

Ruth Kelly: I am delighted to answer question 6. Acquiring a trust allows schools to do more to raise standards using external support and collaboration between willing partners, the strong governance arrangements that we have seen working in voluntary-aided schools, and the flexibilities that almost 900 foundation schools have used to manage their assets and resources. Trust schools are local authority-maintained schools, which means that they operate within the same funding and capital system and exactly the same code of fair admissions as other schools do now.

Helen Jones: Could my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the people whom she envisages as being able to run trust schools? She has previously said in a parliamentary answer that people barred from becoming directors would not be able to run a trust. Does that mean, however, that firms such as McDonald's, for instance, would technically be able to run trusts?

David Willetts: I welcome this first opportunity to question the Secretary of State. Whatever our differences on other matters today, I can assure her and the Government of our support if they do indeed pursue serious education reform. Will she clear up a crucial confusion? When the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked her in a Select Committee hearing last month if trust schools would be independent like academies, she said:
	"No . . . Trust schools are local authority maintained schools."
	In October, however, the Prime Minister said that they would be "independent, self- governing state schools" with "Academy-style freedoms". Which is it to be? Will the Secretary of State sort out this confusion once and for all by simply repeating the Prime Minister's words? If I may say so, today is a good day for her to stick very close to the Prime Minister. If she does so, I hope that she will assure us that trust schools will be independent, self-governing and, indeed, have academy-style freedoms.

Ruth Kelly: The best safeguard for trusts is to trust the schools and the parents. If a trust is set up as a charitable foundation, has educational objectives according to charity law, and can prove and show that school and the parents that it will be able to raise standards in that school or perhaps link that school to other schools to raise standards, parents and schools should have that choice, subject to the appropriate safeguards. Although there has been huge progress over the past eight years, one in four secondary schools is still underperforming, and we have a duty as a Government to take the action that is needed to increase opportunities for every child in our secondary school system.

Discounted Prosecutions

Geoff Hoon: I have already responded to the House's seasonal good wishes, and I should like to respond in kind to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps rather ungenerously, I suggested before the Christmas recess that his chances of becoming Liberal Democrat leader were in the order of 100:1. Recent events may have shortened those odds, and I am sure that we would all congratulate him if he were to succeed.
	As I have said already, I agree that it is important to give people across the country confidence about the arrangements for dealing with people on the sex offenders register. All Government Departments take that seriously, and I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make a statement in due course about the implications for education. However, it is important to raise these matters in connection with other Departments, including the Home Office. Home Office questions take place on Monday, and they will provide an opportunity to question Ministers. Ministers representing other Departments will be answering questions on subsequent occasions.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked for a debate on defence procurement, and I can tell him that the previous Secretary of State for Defence established the important tradition that such matters should be debated on a very regular basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be opportunities to debate defence procurement in the very near future but, in the meantime, a written ministerial statement today deals with the question of Qinetiq. The hon. Gentleman should read that statement, and I shall endeavour to answer any questions that he may want to raise with me in due course.
	I am very pleased with reports of the success of the freedom of information legislation, which gives people opportunities to secure information in a way that was not possible previously. I am only slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome did not congratulate the Government on their efforts in that respect.

Peter Bottomley: The whole House will welcome the indication that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on asbestos-linked diseases. We hope that the Lord Chancellor will solve the problem without the need for a debate.
	The report published today by the Health Committee on the proposed reorganisation of primary care trusts is a devastating commentary on a change that will affect everyone in England. I hope that the Government will arrange for a debate, not so that we may be partisan—the issue is too serious for that—but to ensure that we do not lose 18 months on reorganisation and another 18 months on trying to get the benefits, when health needs need to be met now, next year and the year after. Linked to that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister and others who talk—as the Prime Minister did yesterday in columns 281 and 282—about how waiting times have reduced for nearly all the main indicators? They need to include audiology tests in hospital in the main indicators, because the waiting time for a 20-minute hearing test and to get a hearing aid are up to two or three years. It is disgraceful that those times have not been reduced. I do not accuse the Government of being at fault for that, but they have the power to ensure that people have a hearing test within a few months and a hearing aid shortly afterwards.

Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement about the arrangements for vetting and barring those who work with children. As the House knows, I laid a written ministerial statement at 9.30 yesterday morning and I now want to update Members of the House and answer questions.
	Child protection has been a top priority for the Government, as it was for previous Administrations. Over the past 10 years the child protection system has improved fundamentally as a result of action first taken by the Conservatives, on which we have built, with cross-party support, in reforming our sex offences laws and setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. Given the scale of change over the last decade, it is helpful to set out briefly the systems currently in place before examining how the issues have arisen and what I propose to do about them.
	List 99 covers those barred for life from working in schools and has been in place for decades. The decision-making process has remained substantially the same, with Ministers in successive Governments required under law to make sensitive child protection judgments on individuals who have come to the attention of the police. Members on both sides of the House will have experience of making such difficult judgments.
	We have significantly tightened List 99 in recent years, with more individuals automatically barred from working with children, and the criteria for inclusion on List 99 being broadened. However, the list does not act in isolation. The previous Government paved the way for the introduction of the sex offenders register, which came into force in 1997. We established the Criminal Records Bureau, which reveals all cautions and convictions to employers where relevant. We have now committed to strengthen the system further through the implementation of a new vetting and barring scheme, as recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. All those measures significantly tightened the protection available to children and ensured that we have some of the toughest sex offender laws in Europe.
	The system currently works in the following way. Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically be included on List 99, which bars them for life from working in schools. The vast majority of sex offenders are therefore automatically barred from working in schools. For other offences, or where the individual has received a caution, the law currently requires each case to be considered individually and a decision taken by Ministers, based on evidence and advice, even though the individual may have been placed by the police on the sex offenders register.
	In my statement yesterday I said that initial inquiries indicate a small number of such difficult cases. I fully understand the concern that that has caused and I am determined to do something about it. I have, therefore, commissioned as a matter of urgency an exhaustive review of all such cases since the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, to confirm the precise number of those individuals, their whereabouts and whether their behaviour has been of concern to the authorities.
	I am sure, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those cases raise questions about whether the long-standing arrangements need to be changed. I will therefore also review urgently the decision-making process surrounding such cases and the policy implications—in particular, how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources; whether Ministers can be removed from the decision-making process; and how police advice can be more fully considered prior to decisions being made. That review will take place with the greatest possible speed, and I will report to the House as soon as the facts have been established and I have reached my conclusion.
	I reiterate the Government's commitment to implement Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations to tighten the system for vetting and barring those who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults and to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. The Bichard system will also entail the vetting in advance of entry into the children's work force, the continuous updating of police information and the ability for parents to check whether tutors, nannies and other individuals whom they employ are barred. It will ensure that cautions and convictions are treated exactly the same.
	The House will remember that legislation to implement the Bichard report was in the Queen's Speech. I can announce today that the Government will be able to introduce that legislation at the end of February. Assuming the full co-operation of the other parties, I am confident that parliamentary time can be found for the Bill in this Session.
	It is vital that public confidence in our child protection system is maintained. That is why I made a written statement to the House at 9.30 yesterday morning and why I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As Secretary of State, I am accountable for all decisions taken in my Department, and I am determined to keep the House and the public informed. I will make a further statement as soon as the full facts have been established.

David Willetts: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come to the House to give the statement this morning, but it is extremely disappointing that all she can offer us today is another review and legislation that, in the Government's own words, was "urgent" 18 months ago. Why did she fail to begin by setting out the basic principle that sex offenders should not be able to work in schools? The case of Mr. Reeve has seriously undermined public confidence in her Department's ability to meet that basic principle.
	The Secretary of State can restore people's confidence in the system only by answering the following questions, which she failed yet again to answer this morning. First, how many people on the sex offenders register are being allowed to work in schools? I tabled that question on Monday, but I have still not had an answer. That is not an obscure point that requires research in ancient files. We are talking about her Department consciously taking a decision that someone on the sex offenders register should be allowed to work in a school. That is a very sensitive decision indeed. Why can the Government not tell us, even now four days later, in respect of how many people they took that decision?
	Secondly, who took the decision that Mr. Reeve should be allowed to work at Hewett school? The Secretary of State hinted during the week that her junior Minister took the decision. He has replied that he is innocent. How can the Department be in such disarray that it does not even know who takes these decisions?
	Thirdly, one of the main proposals from the Bichard inquiry after the Soham murders was that there should be a single list of sex offenders. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said:
	"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1186.]
	He said that 18 months ago. The Secretary of State now comes to the House to say that she will legislate, but she has not said that she will legislate to introduce that single list. In fact, last night, Sir Michael Bichard said that there were "real dangers" while different lists continue to have different decision-making processes. However, instead of plugging that loophole, which is at the heart of the scandal that we are debating today, the Secretary of State says that she will review how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources. That is what the Bichard report is all about. That is the loophole that she needs to close.
	Yesterday, in the statement that the Secretary of State gave, she said that, in future, such decisions would be taken by her personally. What are these decisions that she is going to take? The only decision that she could possibly envisage in that statement is that people who are on the sex offenders register should still be allowed to work in schools. So why does she not just say that people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to teach in schools? Why can she not make it as simple and straightforward as that?
	Today, a year and a half after the publication of the Bichard report, the Secretary of State has announced a review and legislation with no substance and explanation. We hope that her review comes up with useful proposals, but any system ultimately depends on the judgment of the people who run it. No review, no legislation can change that.
	The Secretary of State was no doubt relieved that she got at least tepid support from 10 Downing street yesterday, but the question is not whether she has the confidence of the Prime Minister. The question is whether she has the confidence of millions of parents who will be deeply concerned that she has failed to ensure basic standards for people who work with children in schools. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the confidence of millions of parents in her judgment and in the Department that she runs is fast ebbing away? Nothing that she has said today has restored that confidence.

Ruth Kelly: I take responsibility for every single case that has been determined under my stewardship as Secretary of State for Education.

Alistair Darling: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West wants to say how pleased he is that the Government have made that decision—I expect that he is composing an intervention to say just that. If we pass the motion, it will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions in relation to the extension. The procedure will be different from the Crossrail Bill. I repeat that the Government are not persuaded that we should extend Crossrail at this stage for reasons that I do not think it necessary to set out again, although I will happily do so. The motion allows the debate that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West are anxious to hold.

Alistair Darling: That matter would have to be decided. Under the 1992 Act, the applicant would be the operators of the railway, which could be Cross London Rail Links or Network Rail. Whatever Government are around at that time would have to be involved, because I do not suppose that the operation would be cost free. All I am promising the House is that if the motion is passed, the Select Committee will have an opportunity to hear the petitions. We are nowhere near saying, "This is the next project, and this is what we might do." Crossrail would be by far the biggest single engineering project anywhere in Europe, and I am anxious to get something manageable. I have told the House many times, and especially in July, that we must ensure that the project is manageable. I hope, in that context, that I will satisfy hon. Members that we can discuss the possibility of an extension to Reading and apply the same consideration to Ebbsfleet.
	We decided not to go to Ebbsfleet largely for operational reasons because of the complexity of the lines in north Kent. However, representations are being made about that.

Mark Field: The Secretary of State will be glad to know that I am not going to say anything about Ilford. The third instruction, however, involves the relocation and change in methodology of the crossover under the Barbican—now also a listed building—in my constituency allowing for the deployment of a different construction method. There are great concerns in my constituency, as in many other built up constituencies, about the disruption and noise, and there are some sensible suggestions in the third instruction, although I appreciate that it is a bit of a mish-mash. In particular, the changes will remove the need for a work site in Aldersgate street, which would have been extremely disruptive to Barbican residents as well as causing a great a deal of noise and traffic disruption for many commuters coming into the City of London daily. The change in the method of construction of the cavern in which the crossover is located is also intended to reduce noise, which is greatly to be welcomed.
	I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make a longer than normal intervention—as the Secretary of State rightly said, we have a two-hour debate, and very few Members will be able to make speeches.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend has made his speech, too, so we are making progress. I am quite sure that those matters will be considered, and I am glad that the all-party group went to St. Pancras, which is an excellent example of the Government's commitment to improving Britain's railways. When it opens in just under a couple of years, it will make a big difference to people's ability to travel to the continent.
	Let us not lose sight of the fact that this project is essential not just for the future development of London but, as I said, for the wider UK economy. There will be many difficult decisions to take, and I envy neither the Select Committee nor my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)—who is sitting in his place reflecting on what awaits him—their tasks. The Government will have to table amendments such as those that have just been mentioned, because we want to do everything possible to get the project going and to see that Crossrail is built. On that basis, I hope that the House will give its support to the three instructions.

Chris Grayling: I shall come on to political playthings in a moment. I believe that it is the Secretary of State, rather than I, who regards Crossrail as a political plaything.
	If the Committee is being allowed to consider two possible alternative routes, I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that it cannot discuss fully the views of others.
	On political playthings, what we are engaged in today is simply talk: this is a process that will lead not to action, but to more talk. I say directly to the Secretary of State that this Bill, Crossrail and these motions are set to become just another chapter in the growing volume of Government broken promises on transport. I do not believe that the Government have any intention whatever of seeing this scheme through to fruition. They are leading the people of London and its businesses, and those Members who have thrown their weight behind the scheme, up the garden path.
	We must remember where we started from. In the 10-year plan document, the Government not only promised that the people of London would be travelling under the capital in brand new Crossrail trains by 2010; they also said that they had the cash to pay for the scheme. The document states that,
	"assuming the broad approach set out above, the following could be delivered with this level of investment".
	The bullet point list in that document includes
	"An eastwest rail link, such as CrossRail".
	Of course, that statement is now history and has clearly long since been abandoned. That is why I am so doubtful about the Government's motivation in respect of today's motions and this scheme.
	We now know that the Government's estimate of the scheme's cost is heading rapidly past £15 billion, and that their finances are looking increasingly shaky and under pressure. A comprehensive spending review is just a couple of years away, and all independent expectations are that the Chancellor's spending options are much more limited than in the past few years. Do we honestly believe that from 2008 onward—the year in which the promoters say that they hope construction of the scheme can begin—the Chancellor will start issuing financial guarantees or writing cheques to get Crossrail off the ground? Will the Secretary of State give a clear, categorical public assurance today that the current Government intend to fund the lion's share of the construction of Crossrail, as they once said they would? Can he still make the same commitment that he made in the original 10-year plan document—that the Government would provide the funding to make Crossrail happen? [Interruption.] There is silence from the Government.

Chris Grayling: It is not only strange; even if that report did consider Crossrail funding, it would be somewhat illogical for a report on the future financing of local government suddenly to be extended to include an analysis of the cost of what will be one of Britain's biggest transport projects. My hon. Friend will remember episodes of "Yes, Minister" in which inconvenient decisions were delayed by a useful review. Far be it from me to suggest that that was the Secretary of State's motivation, but I am sure that there are those who will have a similar suspicion.
	I do not believe for a moment that the Government will make a commitment to fund Crossrail any time soon. I do not believe that it will make such a commitment at any stage during this Parliament. The people of Reading and of north Kent will be allowed to make all the representations to the Committee that they want to make about Crossrail's terminus. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and his constituents may not be allowed to make the same representations, but in fact, this is all talk. Such discussions will not lead to substantial decisions, so in that sense, I can allay his concerns.
	I have no doubt that the Government will encourage members of the Select Committee to consider very carefully new ideas to develop the project. I have no doubt that Ministers will make warm noises in response to those deliberations; they may even put dotted lines on the project team maps to illustrate future options. But I do not believe for one moment that Ministers intend that all this should lead to real action and real new capacity for the travelling public. When the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) discusses Merseytram in this House, it becomes clear to me that the Government cannot be trusted to keep their promises on transport. If they cannot afford small projects, it is hard to believe that they can afford big ones.
	We Conservatives, along with constituents and business communities throughout London, will continue to support this Bill and these motions, and we will continue to encourage the project team in the hope that the Government will surprise us and actually deliver this time. But I suspect that the termini in Reading and Ebbsfleet—and, indeed, the whole Crossrail project—are destined under this Government to become just another set of bullet points in the long list of the Government's broken promises on transport.

Martin Salter: I very much concur with my hon. Friend. Whatever the question is, the answer is not Maidenhead, for all the reasons that I have outlined. Even Reading will require significant additional investment, and that is why the motion must be approved. The case for Reading must be examined properly and in detail by the Select Committee, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will ensure that that happens.
	This motion is good news, as it represents a significant departure from the Government's position outlined in the debate on 19 July. I was not happy with some of the assurances that I received then, which is why I abstained in the vote. I am pleased that there will be proper consideration, but a line must be drawn, and I hope that the Minister will do that when he replies to the debate.
	As I said in an intervention, in the past the use of the Transport and Works Act 1992 has resulted in the petitioners being regarded as the applicant. If there is to be an extension beyond Paddington or Ealing Broadway to Reading and Maidenhead, it is vital that the applicant is either Crossrail or Network Rail, as it would be monstrously unfair to lay the burden on the petitioners, the local authorities or local businesses.
	I remind the Secretary of State of his reply to me on 19 July, when he said that the project must be kept manageable. That is true, as we must avoid the disaster that took place under the previous Government. I regret that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Opposition spokesman, tried to make party-political points, but I shall make one in return: letting the Crossrail project run into the sand in 1989 was a disaster. Constituencies to the west of London need Crossrail even more than Reading does, and I do not want the case for an extension to Reading or anywhere else to limit the chances of my colleagues representing those areas.
	I want to offer three conclusions to the House. First, the case for Reading rather than Maidenhead must be heard, and I am pleased that that is going to happen. Secondly, any application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 must be made by the Government, Network Rail or Crossrail, and not by the petitioners themselves.
	My third point is the most important, and has to do with the proper assessment of the likely costs. I have no doubt that, following examination of the relevant factors— such as the western terminus and all the others that I outlined earlier—the Select Committee will conclude that the scheme will have to be phased. A workable and achievable Crossrail phase 1 could deliver for communities around London a properly costed scheme to provide rail access to Reading and other places to the west at a later stage. That would be preferable to a fudge or an imperfect scheme that would be neither fish nor fowl.
	By all means let us vote for the motion, and ensure that the case is examined properly, but let us also ensure that Crossrail can deliver the maximum benefit in the shortest possible time. The people who rely on the scheme and on Crossrail have waited long enough.

Derek Twigg: I welcome the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to his new post and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) to his first Front-Bench position.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for a valuable debate on the instructions to the Select Committee dealing with the Crossrail Bill. I am pleased that there is such widespread support for the Bill. The Committee process will be an important part of ensuring that we deliver Crossrail, to which our commitment is clear and firm. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that it is delivered as soon as possible.
	Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall do my best to respond briefly to some of them. Of course, the issues raised by hon. Members will be the subject of further and detailed consideration by the Select Committee, and matters to do with the details of the project will be the subject of thorough interrogation. The additional measures that the Government propose to introduce will also be subject to that rigorous process. If the House passes the instructions, the Committee will be able to consider other matters that are causing great concern but that would otherwise have been outside its remit.
	Many hon. Members spoke in this excellent debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) stated his strong support for the Bill, highlighting the economic benefits of Crossrail to London and to the country as a whole. He strongly favours a station at Woolwich—he has made that case before—and the Select Committee will hear petitions on the subject.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised a variety of issues. I can only respond briefly to a couple of them today. All of the material relating to the additional provisions will be published next week and local authorities will be able to petition the Select Committee, which will then consider the details. He raised the important subject of Crossrail's effect on rail freight. I chair the Crossrail high-level forum, which brings together interested parties such as local government and rail industry representatives. We have set up a sub-group on rail, and all the rail interests attend its meetings. We have also set up a working group on the timetable and on access options, which involves rail freight interests, and we are working together to get the best possible solution. It is not the case that there will be a reduction in freight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made a strong argument on behalf of his constituency, emphasising Reading's importance as a rail terminal. He made a strong case for Reading and I note that he welcomed the Government's instruction in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about the impact of Crossrail as strongly he did on Second Reading. Discussions are ongoing with the local authority and other bodies about some of the issues that he raised here today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said that we have an opportunity to ensure that the dream of Crossrail is realised. He spoke about its importance to the Thames Gateway, referring to its economic benefits and the need for jobs and development and for the removal of any constraints on that. He also spoke about the project's wider significance to London and the country as a whole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made important points on the need to improve public transport. He also highlighted Crossrail's importance to his constituency and London in terms of regeneration and job creation. He spoke about the job losses that have occurred in his part of London over the past couple of decades and recognised the opportunity that now exists. He, too, made the case for Woolwich.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised a number of issues. I can only refer him to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told him during his opening remarks. The Select Committee will sit for the first time next week under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). It will discuss matters of detail, and it will have an opportunity to examine many of the issues raised by hon. Members, petitioners and others. Instructions before the House provide important clarification for the Committee, and will further facilitate its proceedings. The Committee will be a crucial next step in the Bill's progress towards the realisation of Crossrail, and I commend the motions to the House.

Michael Weir: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question of the gas supply? Is he aware of the research by Professor Alex Kemp of Aberdeen university, which discloses that there are up to 20 finds to the west of Shetland that have not yet been developed? Most of them are fairly marginal, but the changes in the tax regime introduced by the Chancellor have meant that they will become even more marginal. Is that sensible when we are apparently relying on gas from faraway countries in central Asia? Will the Secretary of State consider introducing incentives to assist the development of these marginal fields?

Tobias Ellwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that had the EU sorted out a proper gas market two or three years ago, we would not be affected by such high gas prices now? As France and Germany own much of the infrastructure, they are able to subsidise their gas prices and pass those prices on to the UK domestic market.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that, because we shall now be importing such a huge amount of gas, Britain's electricity-generation industry will, for the first time in our history, be too dependent on primary fuel sourcing from overseas? Never before in our history will we have been so dependent on fuel imports to generate electricity.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the issue at the heart of the review—not only what we are sourcing from abroad but where we are sourcing it from. As for gas, Norway and the Netherlands are hardly unstable countries, and they will supply the major part of it. None the less, that is an important element in the review, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
	The investments will increase supply. But, given the background of our increased reliance on imported gas over the next 15 to 20 years, and the important investment decisions that multinational companies will be making on where to invest, in which the price of energy will be a crucial factor, we cannot rely on those developments alone. We need to remain alert to new ways of increasing supply, and be quick to build on new developments in the way in which we supply, import and store gas.
	Rapid advances in technology are taking place, with the potential to make a real difference. Britain's legal framework needs to be capable of dealing with those developments. Today I can announce new measures to increase the potential for gas storage in the UK. First, we will revise the legal regime covering new offshore gas storage and offshore gas unloading. When parliamentary time is available, I will introduce legislation to achieve that.
	Over the next decade, companies will be able to use new technology to create salt caverns offshore and store gas in them. There is strong potential for gas storage in a number of geological formations offshore, in areas such as the Irish sea and the southern North sea. That could significantly add to the UK's gas supply capacity. There is already commercial interest in creating those new facilities. We will ensure that the right framework is in place to allow them to be created. The new framework will also facilitate innovative proposals for unloading liquid natural gas tankers at offshore mooring buoys connected by pipeline to the shore.
	Secondly, we will also examine the onshore consents regime, with the possibility of further legislation if appropriate. This work will move forward in parallel and in conjunction with the energy review, and the Barker review of land use planning, established by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister.

Alan Duncan: Of course it was a big fire. It was exactly the kind of security issue that we have to grapple with in any sensible review and in the very debate we are having this afternoon.
	Insurgency in Iraq and nuclear fears in Iran contribute to habitual doubts about political stability in the middle east. A spat between Russia and Ukraine has recently caused spikes in the gas price, and fears remain that Russia will again flex its political muscles and disrupt supply.
	All that is but part of the global backdrop to the challenges of creating a sustainable energy policy. To that uncertainty, one needs to add all the domestic questions of the financial and economic framework in which investment decisions—necessarily long-term—have to be made, some conditions of which are utterly unhelpful to those decisions.
	The UK is increasingly vulnerable on energy security. That manifests itself in the higher prices we are paying for energy when compared with our competitors. I shall come to the causes and security issues shortly, but I should like first to examine the scale of the problem. Whereas we cannot, of course, be insulated from the impact of global price shifts, the problem is that we are suffering more than we need to and are paying more than we ought to. Whereas small UK companies paid 12 per cent. less for electricity than those in France in July 2004, by October 2005 they were paying 15 per cent. more.
	In respect of gas, the Energy Intensive Users Group has said that
	"new contract prices to large industrial consumers are already more than 30 per cent. higher than their equivalents in France, and more than 40 per cent. above those in Germany—a situation that is set to get worse over the coming months."
	That is both unnecessary and a serious threat to our economic competitiveness.
	In recent months, four European countries have overtaken us and now pay cheaper prices for natural gas. There are also increasing problems for domestic users: the consumer price index shows that end-user fuel bills rose by 14 per cent. in the past year.
	Paradoxically, as the Secretary of State was honest enough to admit earlier, Britain is becoming more dependent on gas at a time when elsewhere in the world there is greater optimism about, and progress being made in, alternative and diversified energy sources. The clean coal and carbon capture schemes, among others, offer genuine hope for the conversion of existing technologies. Meanwhile, Denmark and Portugal lead the world in the provision of wind and wave power.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the potential for clean coal technology. There has been a bonfire of the policies in the Opposition, so will he say whether the Conservatives can see emerging from the smoke a substantial role for coal in increasing diversity of supply? If so, would that include the 800 million tonnes in the Asfordby coalfield, which largely lies beneath his constituency?

Alan Duncan: Well, if it is not true, I look forward to the Minister saying so when he winds up, so that it is on the record.

Nick Brown: The context of today's debate must be global warming—the most important single problem that this country faces. It is an international problem. Our contribution to its solution will not alone solve the whole problem, but as a nation state we have a duty to set a lead. We must punch above our weight, and we must play our full part as a country in international efforts to find a solution. It therefore logically follows that there should be no solution to the question of security of energy supply that exacerbates the problem of global warming. Indeed, the solutions that we find must bear down on that problem.
	As the Secretary of State made clear in his introductory remarks, the energy issues that face our country are not immediate, but they are marching remorselessly towards us and the lead times for any solution are, of necessity, long. The key features of the issue are well understood—the declining output of existing nuclear stations and the reduction in output from coal-fired power stations by about half over the next 15 years. Thus, there is a need to replace existing capacity and to meet future and, we would all accept, rising demand.
	The implication of all that is increased reliance on the international energy market. Other countries are in that position—I do not accept that it is unreasonable—but we must understand that, if we take the same approach, we will compete with those countries against a background of clear and steadily rising demand. We must face up to the fact that the international energy market is not the free market that we would like it to be. Indeed, even in the European Union, the energy market is not the free market that we would like it to be. I commend the Secretary of State's efforts to liberalise that market, but we are not there yet.
	We must also recognise that there is an increasing tendency for national Governments in exporting countries to intervene in industry issues for reasons that are unrelated to the gas or oil market. In other words, they view their possession of a desirable resource as an extension of foreign policy, as well as something to sell to people who want to buy. We must take that into account when we consider our own nation state's security of supply.
	A modern, post-industrial economy is inter-reliant and fundamentally reliant on electricity. Issues such as the just-in-time delivery of foodstuffs and other goods, the running of the transport network, modern communications and modern information technology all rely on electricity. I suppose that that is stating the obvious, but that does not make it any the less important.
	The Secretary of State was straightforward enough to say that price rises, which cynics might say could be a conservation measure, seem inevitable. Again, we must accept that, if price rises come, they will impact on the elderly, the vulnerable and our industrial competitiveness.
	How should we respond? I do not believe that conservation and considering new methods of generation are rival policies. I strongly agree with the Secretary of State's point on the importance of diversity of supply and we should continue the good work being done on home insulation and driving up energy efficiency standards in building regulations, for example. Much has been done, but much remains to be done.
	There are good ideas in the industry. I wish to draw the Government's attention to a recent project in which Siemens, located in Heaton in my constituency, and Alcan, which runs an aluminium smelter on the Northumbrian coast, secured significant energy efficiencies simply by refurbishing the turbines in an existing power plant. I commend that approach to the Government and the House.
	The North sea is a mature oil and gas field, but it still has reserves and we should encourage the use of new technologies to maximise the extraction potential and get the maximum benefit from it. Now is not the time to engage in a technical debate on the working of the North sea tax regime, but there is a strong case for the Government and the industry to work in partnership on ensuring that we maximise the gain from the North sea fields.
	Significant losses occur in electricity transmission between generators and end users, but developments in conduits have the potential to reduce that loss and to increase efficiency. We should take an interest in those developments, and if new investment is required, so be it. In addition, if our aim is to reduce the losses that occur during transmission between generator and consumer, it is logical to locate power plants closer to consumers of power. There is a north-south divide in this country, with generating capacity located predominantly in the north and demand—certainly increasing demand—tending to be in the south. There would be consequential issues arising from such a policy, but if we are serious about reducing inefficiencies in electricity supply, we have to face up to that divide. I urge the Government to do that.
	There are potential contributions from other sources: wind farms and other renewables have been mentioned and I think a case can be made for reconsideration of hydroelectric schemes, but I urge Ministers to give particular consideration to carbon sinks and clean coal technology. Output from convention coal-fired power stations will decline; if it is possible—economically possible—to invest in clean-coal technology and new methods of carbon capture, we should do so. Having said all that—

Eric Illsley: I greatly welcome the debate but it is a pity that we have been given only three hours for it, approximately an hour and 40 minutes of which will taken up by Front Benchers, given the length of time that they have already taken and the winding-up speeches later. It is a shame that we get such a short debate on an issue that is so important.
	The debate is timely. Although I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's comments on our current energy supplies and our security, we read newspaper articles that refer to the "crisis" in our electricity and gas power supplies. Although we have probably not yet reached the crisis, given the long lead-in times for any new development—nuclear, gas, coal or anything else—we must start making decisions now and not wait any longer while establishing reviews, investigations and consultations about how to progress.
	The Secretary of State pointed out that we face several problems with our existing energy supply. We are a net gas importer; our nuclear plants are ageing; our oil supplies in the North sea are expiring; our coal mines have been neglected, ignored, mothballed or simply closed; renewable sources have not come on stream as fast as they should; and perhaps we rely too much simply on windmills. While all that is happening, demand, which we have to meet, increases relentlessly year after year.
	I am surprised that the Government have decided on yet another review, because the previous one took place only in 2003. The White Paper that was produced then states:
	"By 2020 we could be dependent on imported energy for three-quarters of our total primary energy needs . . . we may become potentially more vulnerable to price fluctuations and interruptions to supply caused by regulatory failures, political instability or conflict in other parts of the world".
	What more do we need to know? Those words were in a White Paper three years ago. How many times do we have to say it? We need to take some action now.
	I went to the Library this morning and dug out a list of the Energy Committee's reports between 1987 and 1992. It is depressing that Energy Committee reports 16 years ago have the same titles as Trade and Industry Committee reports now. The reports then, as now, were on nuclear power, gas, renewables, clean coal technology and so on. We have known about the problems for a long time and we need to take action to deal with them now.
	We have a diverse selection of fuel sources, and every commentator tells us that security of supply will be achieved through that diversity, by ensuring that we have several energy sources. However, each source has its own problems. The problem with nuclear power is its ageing reactors and the cost of dealing with the existing nuclear waste, which is estimated at £56 billion. What are we to do with that waste? We do not even know how to get rid of it yet, and we are probably talking about tripling the amount that we produce if the proposed new stations go ahead. We do not know what to do with the nuclear waste that we already have.

Eric Illsley: Not with only eight minutes to make my speech; I am sorry.
	Who will pay for the nuclear power and for the new stations? How will we get the planning permissions through, given the 15 years that it took to get Sizewell going, and given that we cannot alter the planning legislation? This Government tried to do that shortly after 1997. What about the underfunding, or unfunding, of the nuclear liabilities? Back in 1990, when the previous Conservative Government tried to privatise the nuclear energy industry, they simply could not do it. When the Energy Committee at the time asked for the financial reports on that privatisation from Kleinwort Benson, Rothschild and all the rest—believe me, you could have jacked your car up on those reports, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they discovered that the City of London and the private investors were not prepared to invest in it because it was too expensive and too risky. I cannot see anyone wanting to invest in it now, either. So who will pay for these nuclear power stations? Will the Government and the taxpayer foot the bill, then franchise them out under some private finance initiative scheme so that private industry can run them? Are we going to let private industry take all the profit while the taxpayer pays all the costs? I can see that going down very well.
	I mentioned coal earlier. We have an anti-coal DTI at the moment. There are elements in the DTI who simply do not want to know about British coal. They want it to wither on the vine and die away. Because of environmental restrictions, the energy supplied by coal will be down to 16 per cent. later this year anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already mentioned Haworth; Rossington is in the same situation.
	In fairness, some of the mining companies that bought into the coal industry after 1994 have not been the best, but coal still has some advantages, one of which is clean coal technology. I should point out that that technology has been around for 25 years. When the Energy Committee produced its report in 1990, the first evidence that we took was from Texaco, whose representatives came to us and said, "What are you doing? We've already got clean coal technology in America. Come and look at it." It was already there; it has been around for a long time. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The power station at Grimethorpe copied the technology that was already running a power station in Stockholm back in 1990. Clean coal technology is already here.
	The other major advantage of coal is that we can stockpile it, as the Conservative Government realised in 1984. They stockpiled a lot of it for a long time. It does not run out, and we can quickly build the stations to use it. However much the DTI does not like coal, and however much people think that it is a dirty fuel, it will clearly be part of any solution, given the 10 years or so that it will take to get the nuclear power stations built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, if we press the nuclear button tomorrow, those stations will still be 10 or 12 years away. We have coal here, now, and we can use it.
	The problems associated with gas are well documented. Even before the Ukraine situation, there were problems. Companies in my constituency, including Potters Ballotini, Rockware Glass and Carlton Brick, are experiencing problems. I chair the all-party group on the packaging industry, and we have made representations to Ministers. When I raised the question of gas supply at Question Time in December, I was told that there was no problem and that we had plenty of it. So why did the price quadruple in December? Somebody is trading it and manipulating the market to cause those problems.
	I shall finish by mentioning co-firing, or co-generation. This uses biomass with coal. At the moment, renewal obligation certificates are available to anybody—Drax power station, for example—using renewables such as oil cake, olive cake and biomass co-generated with coal. They get a 25 per cent. ROC for doing that, which will reduce to 15 per cent. That should be extended beyond April of this year.

Colin Burgon: The recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine has given the debate a sense of urgency, and the question of energy has entered the public consciousness in a way that I have not known before.
	I was surprised by the reaction of some right-wing think tanks and Government spokesmen in the US—the terms may be interchangeable—in criticising Russia's role in the dispute. The advice when communism collapsed was that Russia needed a big dose of marketisation, so there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. The US has never been afraid to use its muscle in the energy sector, the oil embargoes that it has imposed on Cuba being only one example.
	I understand that the price that Ukraine paid to Russia for gas was about one fifth of the level in western Europe. It could be argued that that was detrimental to the wider environment, and I am sure that the Russians would argue that it was also detrimental to their economy. However, we should not be surprised by what happened in that dispute, as greater marketisation will inevitably lead to more conflicts of that nature. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that diplomatic channels represented the best way to deal with such problems in the future.
	The conflict between Russia and Ukraine caused certain people in this country to express their ideas about how to ensure security of supply in the future, but we must put the matter in context. As has been pointed out, we get roughly 70 per cent. of our gas from Norway; we do not get it from Russia.
	At the head of the queue of people giving us the answers to our energy problems are those in the tremendously powerful nuclear power lobby. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I have several questions for them to answer. First, how will we manage the increased amount of nuclear waste? What about the costs of a new nuclear programme? I have read that six new stations would cost some £26 billion. Interestingly, some Opposition Members have said that the state should play a key role in underwriting the building of new nuclear power stations. I think that that proposal is very dangerous.
	Another question has to do with wider security matters. If the UK goes nuclear, other countries will follow, and the existence of a broader nuclear skills base clearly increases the possibility that countries will acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are obvious examples of that. American intelligence sources are occasionally worth listening to, and I understand that they have learned that al-Qaeda was thinking about attacking nuclear power stations—another factor that must be taken into consideration.
	However, even if a green light is given to new nuclear construction, decades will pass before such stations will be able to supply power. In contrast, measures can be introduced now to promote energy efficiency and renewable generation. I hope that the Government will not give way on the objective of getting 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, rising to 20 per cent. by 2020.
	Promoting energy efficiency is a wise, sensible and practical policy, but we must not forget to look at the efficiency of electricity generation. It has already been pointed out that electricity generators lose all but some 38 per cent. of the energy of their fuel through inefficient technology. On the consumption side, only 18 per cent. of houses in Britain are fully insulated. A detached house built in Britain, even under today's modern standards, consumes nearly 20 per cent. more energy than the equivalent home built in Denmark. Perhaps we should appoint an energy conservation tsar—we would have to clear it with the Russians first—who could massively raise public consciousness on the issue.
	If security of supply means looking at what we can promote domestically, I add my voice to the strong case that has already been made for our deep-mined coal industry. Some 33 per cent. of our electricity is generated by coal, and 60 per cent. of that coal is imported. It is reckoned that in Britain we have 200 years of coal reserves, but only 40 years of gas reserves. We have used only 15 to 20 per cent. of our coal reserves in the past 100 years. As has been pointed out, carbon sequestration and underground gasification offer the prospect of clean coal technology, and it is much further advanced than people would have us believe.
	There is a need for investment in the coal industry and we need to take a long-term view. I welcome the £35 million in grant aid from the Government to demonstrate the possibilities of carbon abatement technology, and I understand that it will come on stream in April this year for some four years. However, more operating and investment aid for coal should be considered. At present, the Government provide 30 per cent. of the cost of development work and the coal producer has to find the other 70 per cent. The current investment aid fund has been used up, but banks will not lend against the short-term contracts that are placed by the generators with the coal suppliers. In the United States, coal suppliers have 25-year contracts. Why cannot we have them in this country?
	Coal mining is a long-term, capital-intensive business, requiring some form of Government intervention—that might not be popular with some—in the current structure of the market to ensure continued supplies of UK deep-mined coal. Loans, or loan guarantees, secured on future coal sales are a possible answer, and I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.
	I accept that we need an energy mix, and should not rely on one particular fuel. However, I desperately want the UK deep-mined coal industry to be part of that mix. Action is needed urgently, because we now have only eight collieries and we lack the critical mass that the industry needs to retain the experience and skill and preserve it for the future. It may be an unpopular suggestion, but I believe that there is no future for the coal industry unless it is brought back into public ownership.
	I question the 2003 energy review which concluded that the Government would not intervene in the market except in extreme circumstances. Markets are not infallible, and indeed they often tend towards short-term thinking. There is a role for Government and I hope that this review will confirm that.

Peter Luff: I suppose that every Select Committee Chairman thinks that the subject his Committee covers is the most important facing the country, but there is a strong case for saying that the subject of today's debate is one of the very most important. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not being partisan when I say that I am very disappointed by the length of time available for this debate. Three hours is not enough, as the ridiculously short limit on Back Benchers' speeches and the competition to speak demonstrates. It falls short of the assurances that we were given about a full day's debate on this subject.
	There was a very good debate on the issue yesterday in the acting Westminster Hall, introduced by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan). I am sorry that I was not able to attend, but I have read the report of it. I was struck by the considerable consensus in that debate, which we have seen again today, about the basic issues confronting us, especially the need for diversity of provision and—an issue I wish to emphasise—the protection of skills in the different energy sectors.
	I have two initial thoughts. It is said to be a Chinese curse to wish that someone live in interesting times, but this is one of the most fascinating intellectual, technical, economic, environmental and geopolitical issues of our time. I am sure—from speaking to them privately—that Ministers relish the challenge they face. The trouble is that media coverage and public debate tend to be in inverse proportion to the seriousness of issues because the very complexity that we face in this issue tends to put people off. Sometimes, if we are honest, we are distracted from the most pressing issues by the interest in other less important issues.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) mentioned the actions of Russia and Gazprom, which have done us in an incalculable favour. Digby Jones was, if we are being honest, being a bit alarmist towards the end of last year, and Ministers were probably right to be cautious in their response, but energy supplies are now extremely precarious and becoming more so. Until this winter is over, and it is not over yet—British winters can easily last until Easter—we cannot breathe easily. Whatever the weather, the Russians have not only done us a political favour by reopening the debate and forcing the issue up the agenda; they are also moving us closer to a proper wider European energy market wherein prices are rather closer to true market conditions.
	Perhaps the Russians picked on Ukraine partly for political reasons, but they were selling their gas far too cheaply, and the movement to market prices will enable countries such as Ukraine to take more rational decisions about how they use energy and force them to close their windows in the winter. The growing concerns about energy prices and security of supply are forcing a much more mature debate in this country as well, as we have seen here this afternoon. The Russian action forced the issue right into the headlines. I am told that my Committee's grilling of the Minister for Energy on 31 October was the Christmas highlight of the Parliament Channel, with frequent repeat showings throughout the recess. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, as I do, because sadly there is no appearance fee on the Parliament Channel.
	The February 2003 White Paper struck many of us as rather disappointing, and it is welcome that a review is under way and being conducted with some urgency. As for its conclusion, I am not sure what early summer means, but I hope that the Minister can stick to that deadline. It took quite a long time from rumour, leak, briefing and a declaration of intention to actual announcement of the review, but I am glad that we have got it.
	These are issues that, as previous speakers have said, have concerned the Trade and Industry Committee for many years now. In the last Parliament, there were two major reports, in early 2002 on the security of energy supply and early last year on fuel prices, under the excellent chairmanship of Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan. As this is the first time that I have spoken as Chairman of the Committee, I would like to pay a special tribute to Lord O'Neill. He was a fine Chairman and he is sorely missed; I am glad that he is still benefiting us with his expertise in another place.
	It will come as no surprise to the Minister if I tell him that we meet next week to consider how we will conduct our parallel inquiry into the Government's review. Already in this Parliament we have looked at gas; that was in a report published last month, to which the Government responded today. I had hoped to speak rather earlier in the debate and draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have responded to the report—not something that was put on the record in the Deputy Speaker's opening statement—and the response is available in the Vote Office.
	It is a very good response. In fact, I go so far as to say that it is one of the most exceptionally helpful, thoughtful and constructive responses I have known in my time as Select Committee Chairman, in this case and as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It treats all our recommendations with great seriousness and allays my concern in many areas. It makes encouraging noises about those people, other than the elderly, who suffer from fuel poverty. On industry, it says some helpful things about how it intends to help big users, and I am glad about that.
	I have in my constituency a big brick manufacturer, Baggeridge Brick. We must recognise that the demand response of which the Government's response to our report speaks means that the capacity is not there, and brick factories have been closing. Hanson has already closed a quarter of its factories for the next month, and Baggeridge Brick has written to me to say:
	"Unless something is done quickly to stabilise the gas price then the only possible outcome can be further job losses in the UK manufacturing sector and increased import penetration of building materials from Northern Europe."
	That, I think, is right.
	The question of European liberalisation is one of the other big themes of our report, and it has been a big theme of this debate. We all want it, and I think that I join in the criticism that not enough has been achieved during the presidency, but it is a very difficult thing to achieve. Can the European market be liberalised in the short term without requiring Governments and the private sector to tear up perfectly legal contracts? That is a legal challenge for us. Liberalisation of the European market is high on the Commission's agenda.
	When we went to Brussels before Christmas I was very impressed with what I heard from officials there, but one cannot argue with the fact that the UK will struggle to buy gas in Europe unless either it is able to set up long-term contracts similar to the ones that already exist there with gas producers, so undermining development of the real gas market to which we all aspire, or European countries voluntarily, or as a result of being forced by the European Union, surrender their long-term contracts and trust themselves to the competitive market. These are difficult issues. I had hoped to say more about storage, but it has already been extensively covered, and I welcome both the Government's response to our report and the Secretary of State's helpful opening remarks.
	The last energy policy White Paper in 2003 may have been disappointing in some respects, but its goals remain valid: cutting carbon dioxide emissions, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, promoting competitive markets in the UK and beyond and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated. Perhaps we can now have a rational debate in the context of the Government's energy review, where prejudices for and against any one energy source—including, I must say to the Liberal Democrats, nuclear power—are abandoned for hard fact in the face of compelling reality.
	I will not prejudice my Committee's work, but I am sure that we shall conclude, as the House has, that over-dependence on imported gas from countries with less than perfect political stability is a bad thing; that renewables and clean coal technology have a crucial role to play—come back coal, all is forgiven; that energy efficiency needs to be improved to combat climate change, not so much in the industrial sector but in the domestic and transport sectors; and that the emissions trading scheme, which sets the price of carbon, will have a crucial role in deciding whether the private sector can invest in nuclear power. We may even approach consensus on the nuclear question, although carbon neutrality issues are much more complex than they seem: how much energy goes into mining uranium, or into building nuclear power stations or wind turbines?
	This is one of the most important debates that the House will hold in this Parliament or the next. It does not end today; it merely begins. But at least in part, thanks to the apparently reckless actions of Gazprom, it may be better informed and more urgent—as it needs to be.

Joan Ruddock: Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I warmly welcomed the energy White Paper in 2003. For the first time, the Government acknowledged something that many of us had held true for a long time: we cannot separate energy generation and use from the environmental consequences.
	The White Paper offered, in a global context, the way ahead for the UK for a generation. It showed an exciting prospect—facing the challenge of achieving a low-carbon economy—and pointed to important firsts, such as the first straw-fired power station in Cambridgeshire, the first commercially operational wave power station on the Isle of Islay and the rapid development of wind turbines. None of the annual reports that were promised and have been issued since then—the last one was in July 2005—has indicated any need for a major change of direction. So what has happened?
	Members and Ministers have cited climate change, but the White Paper stated that our first challenge was environmental and that climate change is real. It accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for cuts of 60 per cent. in CO 2 by 2050. Today, the Secretary of State cited the more rapid decline in North sea gas and net importation, but that, too, was anticipated in the White Paper. It noted that the second challenge would be the decline in indigenous energy supplies and that we would be a net importer of gas in 2006. My right hon. Friend spoke about the decommissioning of our nuclear reactors. That is a fact. The White Paper said that probably only one nuclear plant would be open by 2025.
	The importation of gas was recognised; the White Paper said that we would need additional supplies of both piped and liquefied gas from a range of sources, and noted that diversity of gas supply would be important. All the key issues were flagged up. The goals set to cut emissions, retain reliability of energy supply, promote competition and ensure that every house was adequately heated were all thought to be achievable without new nuclear build.
	Nuclear is neither clean nor carbon free. It produces highly toxic waste, which other Members have mentioned. It offers no solution to the problem of climate change. In a life cycle analysis, from the mining of uranium through to the decommissioning of the plant, nuclear power is in no sense carbon free and in the worst-case analysis is just as dirty as a gas-fired station.
	We need to examine more carefully the nuclear contribution to our energy needs. The debate has really been about electricity generation. Primary energy sources, however, show us that gas is 40 per cent., oil just over 30 per cent., coal 16 per cent., but nuclear is only 7 per cent. Transport uses 35 per cent. of our energy supply. Our domestic use is 30 per cent. Industry uses just 21 per cent. So nuclear power may be a significant source of electricity production, but not many of us heat our homes with electricity or drive cars powered by that source. The very sectors that have accounted for the greatest increase in demand—our home heating and the use of our cars—and created the worst pollution are not being served by the nuclear industry.
	I suggest that the costs, the risks, the development time and the production of radioactive waste associated with new nuclear build are all far out of proportion to the potential emissions savings. Furthermore, the argument that new nuclear build is essential to meeting our CO 2 targets is an extremely dangerous one in the international context. The UK accounts for just 2 per cent. of global CO 2 emissions. We all know that the greatest future contribution to and threat from CO 2 emissions comes from China, India and Brazil and such developing economies.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for that correction. I am pleased that that is the case, but it is not what I thought I heard earlier.
	I have visited Finland and Canada in the past few years, and have seen what is being done with waste in Finland. I accept concerns among hon. Members and, indeed, the general public about waste. Who knows? Perhaps the waste of today is the energy of tomorrow. We need to put that waste in a secure place so that it is safe but can be retrieved if we need it for future energy needs in the years and perhaps centuries to come. We should therefore not adopt a short-sighted approach.
	We need the right mix. Clean coal technology is an excellent way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said that it is here today, and I hope that that is the case, as we could make a great deal of money in China and we could sell the technology to other countries. We must pursue that approach. I was pleased to hear earlier this week that China and Britain are working together to try to promote clean coal technology in future, and I hope that that is successful. Unlike some hon. Members who spoke about renewables, I believe that we should put money into them, as we do not know what we will need in future. Usage has increased. How many households nowadays have more than one television? We used to crowd round the television and eat our tea, but today the kids go to their room, which is heated by its own fire, to play with their PlayStation and watch television. I do not know how we stop them doing so. Hon. Members have talked about increasing household energy efficiency. That has been tried in many countries, but it has never provided enough savings to spread the benefits across the whole nation.
	Gas reserves in the North sea are going down, but they are still significant, and businesses should use them to provide heating or to supply gas-related products. However, perhaps we should think about cutting gas usage rather than increasing it. As for costs, which were mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I accept that electricity is expensive, which is why people use gas. Oil, too, was popular when it was cheap. If gas prices keep increasing gas will become expensive. It is a finite substance and it will not be available for ever. There may be a run on gas in 10 or 20 years' time, but supplies will not last for ever. The House and hon. Members should think not just about today's generation but about tomorrow's. It is important that we think a few years down the line.
	I know that other Members wish to speak, but I want to mention a briefing that I received from the Institution of Electrical Engineers, supported by the Energy Institute, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. On the disposal of nuclear waste, the briefing stated:
	"New nuclear build to maintain existing capacity would add only in the order of 10 per cent. to existing waste."
	Some newspaper reports have said that that is not true, but it is. To discount the reprocessing of nuclear waste is to stretch the truth a bit far.
	The report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is due soon. I hope it will propose sound and reasoned ways of disposing of our waste. Other countries have gone down that road. The report from the Canadian body chaired by Elizabeth Dowdswell, who is well known in waste management circles, recommended the same solution as has been adopted in Finland—deep burial. Once the Americans have dealt with the litigation that has arisen, they plan to use a similar method in the Yucca mountains.
	That is not necessarily the right way for us to proceed. We must remember that the waste is here now. It is not the new waste produced in future that will be the biggest problem. As I said, we can cater for that. Irradiated waste is already produced by our hospitals. Do we not want people to have X-rays or scans as part of their medical treatment? We need a place to store such waste, as well as nuclear waste. I hope CORWM will identify options for storage.
	I have crammed a lot into a short space of time. The UK needs a balanced energy policy. No doubt the Minister shares that belief. We should exclude nothing. I do not want to be part of a party that is blinkered about any kind of energy policy. I will listen to everyone's views. I particularly mention the Liberals and the Scottish national party, who have already declared that they do not want nuclear under any circumstances. That is backward-looking and would not encourage me to look towards such a party for government.

Charles Hendry: We have had an excellent debate, but it is a tragedy that we had far too little time for it. It is sad that we were confined to three hours. The debate provided plenty of heat, power and light and I am sorry that we were deprived of outstanding speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran), for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and for Copeland (Mr. Reed).
	The debate began with a speech by the Secretary of State, which he made in his normal balanced and reasonable manner. If he were not a politician, he would make a great country GP, able to tell people difficult things in a way that made them sound pleasant. He started by saying that this country was in a strong position. That must have been the press release, because when we got to the detail, he started to admit the genuine position: we are failing to meet our targets on renewables, and he is concerned about the extent to which reserves have declined. He admitted that prices have been rising through the roof; he accepted that nuclear power provision will be largely out of action in 20 years, and he made a gloomy assessment of the geopolitical challenges that confront us.
	The Opposition welcomed the Secretary of State's commitment to introduce legislation to create new offshore gas storage facilities. We support that in principle and I urge the Minister for Energy to say in his winding-up speech that it will be introduced as quickly as possible.
	The extent of the Secretary of State's lack of concern about our increasing reliance on imported energy was worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said in his opening comments that, by 2020, 60 per cent. of electricity generation in this country would come from gas and that 80 per cent. of that could be imported. That means that half our electricity supply would depend on imported gas. I find that worrying.
	The need for diversity ran through the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chairs the Select Committee, admirably set out the choices for that diversity. Everyone agrees about the need for it, but no one agrees about the exact balance.

Malcolm Wicks: I was thinking of my London School of Economics tutor's more generous comment on my first essay—"A good start to a difficult subject." I thought that that caught the ambiguity rather well.
	We have heard how North sea supplies are declining, but I emphasise—I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on this matter—that we should not exaggerate that point. There is still a great deal of oil and gas in the North sea and other seas around our shores, and it is a vital British industry. Nevertheless, Britain's transition towards becoming a net gas importer is under way. Concerns about tight energy supplies during that transition period, together with other factors such as high fossil fuel prices and high global demand, have collectively led to very high industrial gas prices.
	I will not debate the issue of prices now, but I think that it is a genuinely more complicated issue than some have claimed. Heavy users of gas are suffering price-wise, particularly when they buy in the short term, which is a commercial judgement for them. Many businesses and domestic suppliers have enjoyed relatively lower prices than in France, Germany and elsewhere on the continent, however. Those are the facts, but I understand why various colleagues do not want the facts to get in the way of a good argument.
	Of course we recognise that the recent price spike has created those tough operating conditions. I have met representatives from many industries, such as the chemicals, metals, glass and ceramics industries, and we understand their current difficulty and pain. We are leaving no stone unturned and are working closely with representatives of those industries to mitigate the situation and reduce its impact wherever possible. Long before this winter—in early spring, before I held my present post, and in the summer—we were meeting key stakeholders to discuss issues relating to supply and demand. We met representatives of the North sea oil and gas industry, and emphasised that we needed to be in the best possible position in regard to repairs, spares, and partnership between companies so that we could achieve maximum output this summer. I have met supply companies, the Confederation of British Industry, the Energy Intensive Users Group and many others to ensure that we are as well prepared as possible during a difficult transition period.
	As we have been reminded, however, this is not just about industry and business. Rising prices have an impact on vulnerable domestic householders, especially the elderly, who are physiologically less able than many others to cope with cold conditions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) made some important points about that. I believe that our record in government is good: more than 4 million households have been lifted out of fuel poverty since 1997, and the Warm Front scheme has helped more than 1 million vulnerable households to heat their homes more affordably. That is why the Chancellor increased funding for the scheme in his pre-Budget report. A scheme that has helped more than 1 million households is an important scheme.
	In the pre-Budget report, we also heard about the extension of the winter fuel payments scheme during the lifetime of the current Parliament. That, too, is a popular and important scheme, which provides vital cheques just before Christmas. Those over 60 will receive £200, while others will receive £300. Measures such as pension credit—initiated by the Department for Work and Pensions, in which the Secretary of State and I used to serve—also concentrate resources on vulnerable people.
	We have heard a good deal about the new infrastructure. The Secretary of State mentioned it today. Increasing supply will be key to reducing both industrial and domestic prices. We have also heard about the new LNG terminal at the Isle of Grain. Liquefied natural gas will become more important in the future. We have heard about the doubling of the interconnector import capacity, and about new storage capacity at Humbly Grove.
	There are 10 potential new import projects in the pipeline—an unfortunate and not deliberate pun—which could expand the UK's import capacity by more than 1 billion cu m per year by the end of the decade. That is roughly equivalent to the UK's current total annual demand for gas. The Langeled pipeline from Norway could supply up to 16 per cent., and the new BBL interconnector could supply a further 10 per cent. of UK peak demand. Both those supplies would begin in December 2006. A further upgrading of the interconnector to treble its previous capacity could supply up to 15 per cent. of peak UK demand. Two major LNG import terminals are being constructed in Pembrokeshire, which could in due course provide for more than 20 per cent. of our annual consumption needs.
	Supply has increased and will increase. The new infrastructure announced to the House today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that as we become a net importer of gas, we will have a robust regime in place to facilitate gas import unloading and storage in the UK.
	The slower pace of liberalisation in other EU states is clearly limiting those benefits, so the UK is pressing hard for full liberalisation. I take the partisan points that have been made, but I think the record will show that the European Commission is taking tough action to pursue liberalisation. During our presidency there was a meeting of EU Energy Ministers, and there were two significant reports from the Commission. I am proud of what has been done, and those who take a view on it would do well to read the record.
	Let me say something about the international dimension. As we make the transition towards becoming a net importer, external international factors—some were highlighted by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—become more important. We have heard about the impact of rising energy demand in India and China, and the line connecting hurricanes Katrina and Rita with what has happened in the UK reminds us that international events produce at least a ripple, and sometimes something more serious, on our shores. We need to continue to have a strongly diversified energy system in respect of the different parts of the world from which we import energy, and of the different energy sources that will power Britain long into the 21st century.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. If I may, I will reflect on that and drop her a line. It is an important point for reflection, particularly as we finalise the White Paper over the weeks to come.
	There are number of other challenges that I want to mention. Many people at the end of their life will be suffering from a number of different conditions, not just one, and that can often create complications. We must not underestimate the role of carers because their availability, their attitude and the support that they provide are extremely important in determining whether people are able to die at home. During the listening event that we conducted while we were preparing the White Paper, we paid very close attention to the needs of carers, and we will reflect on what they said to us in the White Paper.
	The last point that I would add to the hon. Lady's analysis is that we must not forget the need for good bereavement services. I know myself that they can make all the difference at what is often an extremely difficult time.